That's not mutually exclusive with being shot from a drone, though
Are you going to discredit footage shot from a video camera because "video cameras don't spawn in air in real life, dude"?
Also, while we're at it, what's your definition of "propaganda"?
that's not how that phrase works
you're confusing AGI/GI with AI
video game AI is AI
companies don't update legal documents for fun
you're also continuing to pointedly ignore what this conversation is actually about, so i'm guessing you don't really have anything relevant to say in response
CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance
why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you're arguing they were already covering themselves against?
that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs
or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here
you can't meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario
you agreed to that too
you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn't make it legally binding, right?
hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services
It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it's still being argued
people continuing to use a bad argument doesn't make it a good one
I'm not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data
tell me you haven't followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven't followed anything about this conversation
the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?
You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren't before? Also, are we exclusively talking about cases where sites gave consent to provide data? Rather than just having it be harvested without their knowledge or consent?
And in any case, you're missing the key point, which is that legality doesn't matter in either case. You can't fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don't.
I suspect that people wouldn't like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.
Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.
Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.
in this case, microsoft just decided that they didn't have to bother supporting legacy accounts because they didn't feel like it, so they pulled them without consent or compensation
in the case of ai generated media, companies just decided that they just had the rights to use existing published media, so they harvested it without consent or compensation
both complaints are the same complaint: that businesses are just deciding on contracts unilaterally and then imposing them on people without the need for consent
Tell that to the cardboard box crawling its way towards the auto turret because the auto turret doesn't scan it human
when you do a merger there are weird special tax laws that apply temporarily
It seems like your definition is broad enough to render all potential forms of media as such, in which case it's not a very useful definition.